mars 2013

Just must say: I definitly agree with Bahareh Andersson (Newsmill), the majority of swedish are not equaly affected by rasism. Talking about spitting the ones truly affected just right in their faces!!!

This talk about equality definitly back-fire sometimes!

And what I agree with is that all the persons affected by violency-allowed-because-of-honour are definitly more affected then the ones who doesn’t risk their lifes by just wanting and trying to live the lifes you and I so take for granted.

I truly enjoy reading books by Stephen Hawking. Only read two, but anyway, they have the same tone of voice. The easiness to explain these complex things, and adding some fun remarkes every here and there 🙂 Relaxing!

Not to say that I am able to explain the Grand Design for others. But is that necessary? Isn’t it a good enought reason to read a sience book, just for enjoing the time reading it, without any major aspirations on actually be able to pass a test afterwards?

And even if I can’t explain all the things explained in the book, it still provides me with an understanding on how far we (humanity) has come in this field.

And yes, I love the logic 🙂 But actually also in the same time getting reminded of all the thousends and thousends of parameters affecting each individual’s actions.

It is very interesting to jump into disciplines you have not visited for a while, giving you much more of an outside-in perspective.

This time I have read buy-ology, and my first and strongest relefection where: Is it truly that many out there still beliving we human are rational? Still beliving we even know why we do things or how we will act?

But I guess we are quite a number who, regardless of that insight, still wants the world to be more rational. We want to understand, we want to predict, we want to gain a competative advantage with that extra insight, in whatever we are up to.

He doesn’t say we can’t gain some more insight, it is more that he highlights that we shall not always just jump into the seemingly easy and traditional ways. For example, show a part of a planned TV-serie and then ask if they will follow it or not. Or the classic example of Pepsi vs Cola where the test panel got small sips, while in reality most persons drink much more at a time, making sweet Pepsi more likable in small sips.

Time summarize it like this:

A fascinating look at how consumers perceive logos, ads, commercials, brands, and productions.

And yes, the method he uses and the results he gains are truly fascinating, and provides further insight to how we react.

The special method used is his neuromarketing study method, where they measure changes in the brain while persons for example look at warnings at cigarette packages. Turns out that it actually trigger the carving for a next cigarette, instead of the wanted opposite effect.

What triggered me to read the book was that I raised a question if it would be possible to measure what the individuals in a board truly found interesting, when decision material were presented for them. Not just what they say they are interested in. But can’t really see that it will happen that a whole team of board members will approve to sit with electrons on their head, revealing what they actually are interested in our not.

And that is more of the scary part of this method, that it provides one further step into the mind, which, as everything, can be misused.

So, in the hands of ”the good guys” in the world, it is an interesting method. But can’t say I am to glad to have found out these new possibilities to look into my brain, bringing my thoughts too close to the society pictured in Karin Boye’s Kallocain.